Three Lose Defamation Claim

21 February 2024

Three Dublin men, who claimed they had been wrongly accused of attempting to leave a restaurant without paying for their food, have each lost €75,000 claims for defamation of character and ordered to pay the restaurant’s legal bill.

Judge Jennifer O’Brien said today in the Circuit Civil Court that while she accepted defamatory words had been spoken by the manager of The Halfway House, Ashtown, Dublin 7, the court did not consider he had spoken recklessly or with malice.

Barrister Conor Kearney, counsel for Springdale Inns Limited which trades as The Halfway House on Dublin’s Navan Road, told the court every retail establishment in the country had a right to inquire of any customer if they had “paid the bill.”

He said manager Robert Hamilton did not have a specific memory of having engaged with any group of three customers in December 2020 but accepted, when the case arose, that he had questioned one man if he intended leaving the premises with others before paying for food.

Mr Hamilton said that after asking if the bill had been paid one of the men had said they were just walking out to a smoking area and that their jackets were still hanging on the backs of their chairs. When he had checked he had seen the men’s jackets still at their table and later when all of them were leaving he had apologized for his mistake.

Mr Kearney, who appeared with Ambrose O’Sullivan Solicitors, said Mr Hamilton had seen the three men walking towards the door and had moved from behind the bar to speak to them once he had established the bill for their table had not been met.

Mr Hamilton, who said he had been with the company for 30 years, denied having shouted across the bar and restaurant: “Where do you lot think you are off to. Get back here, you haven’t paid your bill.”

He told Judge O’Brien there were other people nearby who would have heard him asking if the bill had been paid.

Judge O’Brien dismissed the claims of Niall Hanley, Abbottstown Avenue; Gavin Mooney, of Barry Close, and Aaron Hutch, Virginia Drive, all Finglas, Dublin 11, and directed they pay the defendant’s legal costs.

The judge said the court accepted Mr Hamilton’s evidence that he had not shouted and that he had acknowledged other people heard him and he had attempted to rectify the situation afterwards and apologized.“The court is satisfied Mr Hamilton took reasonable steps to address the situation and had made an honest mistake,” Judge O’Brien said. “There has been no evidence of malice.”

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...